No, what’s even worse is someone who judges a candidate for President on matters that don’t relate to fitness for office and instead tars him with a broad brush based on a biased view of a different religious sect. The argument you use could as well be used to tag Protestant candidates as ‘anti-semitic’ because of things Luther said. And since I’ve seen the movie before in American history, where it was my co-religionists being smeared as “Papists”, I’m convinced the motives, thinking and results of this are all to the bad. So reconsider your (wrong) belier that this is ‘front and center’; really, it’s a side-show.
I would suggest that your issues with Romney’s Mormonism are really more about your problem in accepting/tolerating other theologies and that specific faith in particular and have nothing to do with Mitt Romney’s ability to serve as President.
I list below four (of about another 10) "filters" I use as a voter to evaluate presidential fitness, which are to me "front and center." (And frankly, in the end, it doesn't matter that you think a person's reason for voting is a "side show" or "front and center" or not...I mean a female voter might give you a few reasons she's voting for Mitt and you might accuse her that those aren't the real reasons, it's just a "side show" to cover up her front & center reason based more upon his perceived good looks...but so what?)
Point 1: Religion IS NOT a qualification for public office fitness; but it's certainly is one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.
Point 2: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! (Go ahead, tell me with a straight face, "Yes, I want a POTUS who is easily deceived. I don't believe vulnerability to deception relates to fitness of office.")
Point 3: Other-worldly commitments (faith) is a character issue! There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
Point 4 (which I apply only at the POTUS level): If I...
...(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and
...(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) Then...
Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
The argument you use could as well be used to tag Protestant candidates as ‘anti-semitic’ because of things Luther said.
You're off-base on many counts. (where do I begin?)
(A) Protestants don't label everything Luther said as "Scripture." While it's true that LDS don't label everything Smith said as "Scripture" as well...the fact is, they did elevate Smith's first vision to the level of "Scripture." As it applies to Mitt I don't necessarily associate everything Smith said & tie it to contemporary LDS; but I do take issue that a presidential candidate believes a bigoted "orthodox" description of his base. This fundamental tenet (meaning it's not a take-it-or-leave it belief) says most of his base are abominable, corrupt apostates.
I mean imagine you're a non-minority candidate of a high minority district, and you seek their vote. You act in a cordial, highly inviting manner toward minorities. Your overtures seem to be right on target. But then somebody uncovers that your MooseHead Club constitution labels minorities as "abominable, corrupt apostates." The minority voters would have every right, if the candidate did not reject this constitutution or his membership in it, to not only reject but vilify him.
It seems to me that you're concluding that church members are the only ones who are not allowed to be provoked when stereotyped in a certain manner.
(B) Also, please note that Luther did an "about-turn" on these statements toward the end of his life. MR has done an "about-turn" on multiple issues...so why doesn't he just add one more? All he'd have to say is that he doesn't believe Christians are apostates. All he'd have to do is to disavow just 2 verses in his entire list of LDS scriptures. (Of course, I say "All he'd have to do..." knowing full well that if you take away those 2 verses, you don't have a standing LDS church).